What Podcasts Are You Listening To?

This is an open thread to discuss your favorite podcasts. Below I’ve listed some of my recent favorites. As you can see I stay away from the political and instead enjoy history and true crime.

History on Fire – Daniele Bolelli is an author, history professor, and martial artist who was influenced heavily by Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History. If you want your history fix, and can get by Bolelli’s noticeable Italian accent, then History on Fire is a good place to go. Based on the podcasts I’ve listened to he doesn’t veer off from historical sources but still doesn’t come off as unbearably dry. Instead he explores the bloodier chapters of the past without fear of offending modern sensibilities.

A History of the World in 100 Objects – this is aural popcorn, short 14 minute episodes about the meaning of objects along with the hows and whys they were constructed. Neil MacGregor, the presenter, has a stuffy (as in head cold) British accent that hustles through the material, along with a few short interviews. The material spans the very ancient to the modern day.

Casefile True Crime – if you like Australian accents, then Casefiles is for you. This anonymous podcaster touches on cases all over the English speaking world, going through evidence including available recordings that are presented to the listener. Some of the material is chilling, especially the 911 calls. The cases range from old historical pieces, to well-known serial killers, and even child abductions. Not for the faint of heart.

True Crime Garage – Nic and the Captain explore cases both old and new, all while consuming a reviewed beer. Some very rare anti-gun proselytizing does occur, but the musings on the suspects and motives is always interesting. The focus is mostly on American crimes, and sometimes the episodes veer into odd tangents of humor, but it’s never a boring ride. I rate this a little lower than Casefile but still worth a listen, especially for the deep dives into modern cases that have only just faded from the headlines.

Breakdown – Over the course of a season, Breakdown will concentrate on one case. The listener will hear the evidence, including the police interviews, and opinions of lawyers not directly associated with the case. Given the title name the podcast mostly concentrates on wrongful convictions with improper police procedures and evidence tampering. Since it is produced by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, journalistic standards (remember those?) are high.

About The Author

The Lord Humungus! The Warrior of the Wasteland! The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla!

319 Comments

Raven Nation
on December 20, 2017 at 11:04 am

Man, I got dozens of them but I’ll start with one that’s similar to “A History of the World in 100 Objects” – “50 Things that Made the Modern Economy” also from BBC. Despite the title, it actually goes as far back as cuneiform writing.

Libertarian Stuff:
Cato Daily Podcast – Daily updates on the news from Cato’s perspective. Recomended
Federalist Society SCOTUScast- Commentary on supreme court arguments and cases from an actual practitioner from the FedScoc perspective
Econtalk – You should know what this is.
5th Column – Though I’ve been skipping many episodes lately. Welch and MM telling me how awful libertarians like me are doesn’t make me want to tune in. Kemele interviewing McWorter was much more interesting.
Free Thoughts – Cato’s podcast on free thinking. I skip anything having to do with philosophy, as I find most uninteresting, especially libertarian philosophy. Most episodes are about philosphy…
So To Speak – A free speech podcast by FIRE. Usually a good listen, lots of interesting guests. Run by an old school liberal that is incapable of reconciling the antiliberal left with his place in the blue tribe.
Federalist Society Event Audio – Exactly what it sounds like

Other Stuff:
Common Sense with Dan Carlin – bad politics from an entertaining man
Hardcore History – bad history from an entertaining man
Revolutions Podcast – Better history, less entertaining.
Short Circuit – IJ’s summary of recent cases. Could have been under the Libertarian tag
The Way I Heard It – Mike Rowe tells a little store in the Paul Harvey model. I wish he was less interested in Hollywood personalities, but otherwise fun.
Skeptoid – The “rationalist community” is a sewer, but this podcast is very good. Rationalist commentary on popculture stuff.
RadioLab’s More Perfect – Not recomended
Lexicon Valley

I listen to Radiolab specifically because it has a perspective different than mine. Most of what I listen to is pretty bias. I’m sure a proggie would say the same thing about Short Circuit or Scotuscast.

True in large part, but I’m friends with some proggies that do. Trump’s election was a wake up call for some of them. I’m in a discussion group with 3 progs/leftists. One of them is kind of a bog-standard proggie but who grew up in Trumps America. He’s come to realize just how thick his bubble has become and he’s looking to break out of it.

I absolutely blew his mind when I described a carbon tax to him. He thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. His experience in SF has convinced him that hmm, maybe zoning isn’t an unvarnished good thing.

He actually reads the headlines from the Federalist now.

But you are right, for a libertarian to be informed, we have to know the libertarian take on things and we have to know the proggie take on things too. There’s no getting away from the LAMP (language, academia, media, politics) that the proggies have taken over.

Yes, he’s got a really unique personality. My theory is that Trump won because, while he’s not an ignorant redneck with in a trailer with three teeth, he doesn’t loath them. Dunning doesn’t believe in UFOs or detox, but he doesn’t loath the people that do.

Welch is vestigial to that podcast in general. Moynihan is extremely entertaining but I can tell I disagree with his viewpoints more than the other hosts.

Mother Jones though…considering the face bashing the dude from Daily Caller got when he was on the podcast, its like…I see which idiotic perspective gets more respect around there. Moynihan took no time to talk about what a garbage heap that site was in general, while never mentioning that Mother Jones is as bad, just with the MSM respect of being a lefty garbage heap instead of righty.

Also Cato’s various output, Louder with Crowder, Andrew Klaven/Ben Shapiro, The Federalist, The Conservatarians, Political Economy with James Pathokoukis, Harvard Lunch Club The Editors, The 5th Estate, Jordan Peterson’s podcast, The Weekly Substandard, for more politics. Reuter’s War College puts out some interesting content from a domain I know absolutely nothing about.

Nick is such a uniquely bad podcaster that I’ve dropped that feed. If I want a rambling, 12 minute, close ended question that tells me more about Nick than it does about the the guest, I’ll subscribe again.

I used to listen to Tim Ferriss and James Altucher, but I’ve strayed from those. The ones I keep up with:

Revistionist History – Malcolm Gladwell is probably a lefty, but he doesn’t let it get in the way of telling a great story and giving you something to think about.

The Way I Heard It by Mike Rowe – This one is pure gold. About 8 minutes per episode, he tells a story and only reveals the payoff at the very end. It’s a lot like the old Osgood Files show on the radio. Never fails to entertain or amaze.

I never did either. More often than not it was people prattling on for an hour about something they could’ve and should’ve covered in about 10 minutes. Granted, I’ve never searched very hard. I also have a bias based on the people I know who listen to podcasts. They tend to overlap heavily with the people who fucking love science and took the Daily Show seriously.

For me, I do a lot of my listening while doing other things. From the time I start cooking breakfast – sitting down at my desk at work, I’ve got two hours with nothing for my hyperactive brain to chew on. Then lunch and an hour to commute home, and I’m pushing almost 4 hours of time I couldn’t be reading but now I’m not so bored.

Its pretty rare that I would chose a podcast over reading. Would have to be something really good or time-sensitive.

In 2019, about 48% of households will receive a tax cut of greater than $500, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Since a large percentage of households pay no federal income tax, I’d be more interested in seeing this metric applied to household already paying at least $500 in taxes. Would that 48% change to 80 or 90%? Applying to non-tax paying households generates meaningless data used to downplay the actual impact on taxpayers.

Yes, my dad has them on his Bersa Thunder. They are actually really cool if you’re into them. I’m not the biggest fan because I don’t like having an attachment that big on my pistol, but if you get it sighted in properly, it could be a real boon for self defense. Turns it into a point and shoot rather than an aiming exercise.

My wife and I have EMPs (3 inch barrel). So a pretty short sight radius to start with. The problem I am seeing is that I am old — that means shitty near vision. When I look through the normal part of my bifocals, the target is crystal clear, but the sights are fuzzy. I can still see them well enough to center the front sight between the back sights and to level the sights. But being able to focus on a red or green dot on the target would put it right back into my crystal clear vision.

Even with my current vision, I can put half my shots in the 10-ring on a standard silhouette target at ten yards. But I worry about low light conditions and the sights becoming un-seeable.

When you can’t see the sights because they are too small/too dark are where they shine. I think they are unnecessary for target/duty pistols though. I would see if you like the green laser, most people see green more clearly than red.

We splurged. Two EMPs for concealed carry — Two EMP 4s for range and occasional open carry. And the EMP 4s will be loaded, cocked, and locked in quick access safes in the bedroom. I am not worried about lasers for home defense (there will be a shotgun sooner or later in the bedroom too). And I am not really worried about the EMPs for everyday carry except for low light conditions.

As best I can tell, the tax bill is break even for my wife and I. We have both a primary and a secondary mortgage. From what I read, the bill wipes out the interest deduction on the secondary mortgage. This mean that itemizing will bring us about to say deduction as the new standard deduction for married couples. So our deductions go way down, but the tax rates go down. Worst case, I will owe a several hundred more under the new bill.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We’ve been in the house 13 years now. The mortgage is starting to go down enough that it was noticeable from the previous two years. Hitting the standard deduction now wipes out the declining value of the mortgage interest. I will be better off it a few years.

You go to the grocery store to buy milk, some eggs, orange juice (and maybe a Snickers bar). You go up to the checkout and see the express line only has a couple of people in it. Cool, you think, I’ll be out of here in a jiffy. But, as you’re going up to it, some jerk with two shopping carts full of crap races in front of you and parks in the express line. Hey, wait, you wonder, isn’t this the express line? And, sure enough the cashier points out to him that he’s in the wrong line. The express line is for 10 items or less. “Screw you!”, he responds, “they’ve just passed a new law, grocery store line neutrality. You’re not allowed to forbid me from using any of the lines in the checkout area. You have to treat me just like you would any other customer, even if they only have one thing.” Now, you and the five other guys with less than ten items are stuck waiting for this guy to get finished, when you all should have been able to get through in a jiffy. So, you all get visibly frustrated. “Don’t blame me,” they guy with two shopping carts responds, “If this grocery store wasn’t run by a bunch of cheapskates, they’d put additional cashiers on!. Talk about lousy customer service.”

There’s only one grocery store allowed by law to operate in your city. No competitors are permitted. The grocery store also manufacturers their own private label groceries. When you check out, there are 15 lanes available for those buying private label groceries, but only single lane available for customers who choose a different brand. Don’t like it, tough shit. If you want to buy groceries, you must shop here and can’t start your own competing business.

Net Neutrality was a horrible bill that deserved to die. Comcast throttling down Netflix to direct people to their own video service is an issue though when they have used the force of government to prevent competition.

I still don’t understand the use argument either. Even with Net Neutrality, high data users were allowed to be charged more. Comcast just couldn’t discriminate based on what that data was used for. The scenario of low data users being forced to pay the same rate as high data users is fictional. Maybe some weren’t in practice, but Net Neutrality didn’t prevent an ISP from doing that if they chose (Comcast has been doing this in certain areas for years).

That came out a little stronger than I meant. I’m not an expert in this field or have studied it, but just as far as my experience, I can’t understand why the low vs. high use argument against Net Neutrality exists.

I base this on finding out Comcast has data cap tiers implemented in certain geographic areas that work just like some cell phone carriers still have. If you are a high use data user, you have to pay more, there is no equality with low data users. Maybe I’m still completely misunderstanding though.

There are a number of issues, but most of it is perception. When you contract for a 100MB unlimited line, you are only contracting for 100MB between you and the ISP. What bandwidth you get to any particular downstream location isn’t guaranteed, and can be shared. The torrenters felt that they were entitled to 100% bandwidth 24×7 where the network planners expected the local loop to be bursty.

Professional ISP links are usually negotiated for 95% peak bandwidth, but the consumer lines weren’t covered under contracts like that, and the ISP’s would limit or shape the hogs. I had an early clear channel T1 line which could burst at 1.5Mbits, but I had a 95% contract for 300Kb… so as long as I didn’t use the line 24×7 I didn’t have to pay full price.

Part of the problem is that bandwidth is an interesting resource.. a bit that you didn’t send is a bit forever wasted, so you really want users to fill in off peak usage and be able to shape them hard during the peaks. The torrent activity and any other system that shifted load from peak to off peak traffic is useful, but you have to be able to shape it.

The protocols allow end users and applications to say “this is high priority, this is low priority” please make congestion decisions based on that, but with the tragedy of the commons, nobody sets their traffic as “low priority” right?.. they just want everyone else’s traffic to be lower.

When I only had 1.5Mbit DSL (and a meager 300Kb uplink) I would have a problem if I was working remotely (desktop VNC/citrix) and my wife was watching Netflix or downloading pictures etc. So I had firewall rule shaping to prioritize my office SSL traffic over other classes of traffic. I could only absolutely control the outbound traffic and request that the priority for that traffic be honored, but the ISP’s cared nothing for the return traffic, so I couldn’t shape that.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Wouldn’t the bandwidth issue become moot with data caps? If you expected full use of your bandwidth, but quickly blow through your data cap with high data use applications, it doesn’t seem likely that you will be clogging the lines. If you paid more for a higher data cap, or unlimited use, then the ISP would have additional funds from the high data users to upgrade their infrastructure. Does that sound correct? This was allowed under Net Neutrality as far as I can understand.*

*Not an argument for Net Neutrality, I would still see it killed for other reasons.

but just as far as my experience, I can’t understand why the low vs. high use argument against Net Neutrality exists.

Because the whole point of throttling certain types of traffic is to avoid having it clog up limited bandwidth. Comcast doesn’t have to upgrade its routing infrastructure because grandma is sending too many emails. They do so because Sister is streaming HD video from Netflix 24/7 and Brother is simultaneously streaming HD video from Pornhub, torrenting Star Wars 8, and live broadcasting his [insert recent video game here] play online.

The ISPs are trying to share infrastructure upgrade costs with the biggest users of their infrastructure. However, most “models” of net neutrality completely ignore the content provider part of the equation. Also, I think the government monopoly part is a complete red herring. Government monopoly is its own problem, and we can’t regulate our way to a “better” government monopoly. Net neutrality needs to stand or fall on its own, not propped up by conflating its repeal with a libertarian boogeyman.

Here’s how my grocery model would go. You’re at a farmer’s market where there’s a universal checkout run by market staff (ISP), but each vendor operates individually (Content provider). In fear of unfair checkout practices, the government is thinking about enshrining “first come first served” as the law for the checkout line. See, people are afraid that, despite it not being the policy right now, the market may, in the future, require people making purchases from a certain vendor to either let other people go in front of them in line or make those people pay an extra fee because they’re buying from this certain vendor. This sounds completely unfair, right? Well, the problem is in what the vendor is selling. While most vendors are selling grocery bags full of vegetables, this particular vendor is selling their wares by the pallet full. The cashier (or multiple cashiers, as they come available) still needs to individually count every single vegetable in the pallet, and somebody from the market has to run the forklift to load the pallet in the customer’s car. Because of this one vendor, the market has had to hire 6 additional cashiers, a forklift operator, and has bought a forklift. So far, the market has been happy to oblige. The benefits associated with this one vendor have been immense. However, people are afraid that the market may be thinking about opening their own booth to sell vegetables by the pallet full since they have already bought the infrastructure to handle such purchases, and then the market may try to make the original vendor uncompetitive against their new vegetables by the pallet business.